The domain names in dispute are as follows: <novellpress.com>; <cnatutor.com>;
and <cnetutor.com>. The domain names were registered with BulkRegister.com,
Inc. on February 2, 2000, February 10, 2000, and February 1, 2001, respectively.

3. Procedural Background

On September 5 and 11, 2001, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the
Center) received from Complainant Complaint (in hard copies and in e-mail resectively)
for decision in accordance with the Uniform Policy for Domain Name Dispute Resolution,
adopted by the Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on
August 26, 1999 ("Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy, approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 ("Rules"), and
the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
(Supplemental Rules).

The Complaint was filed in compliance with the requirements of the Rules and
the Supplemental Rules, payment was properly made, the administrative panel
was properly constituted, and the panelist submitted the required Statement
of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence.

The instant Administrative Proceeding was commenced on September 14, 2001.

Respondent filed a Response on October 3, 2001. The Center Acknowledged its
receipt on October 5, 2001.

4. Factual Background

Complainant Novell, Inc. is a leading provider of Net services software that
secures and powers all types of computer networks. Since its inception of 1983,
Novell and its products and services have become well known in the computer
and Internet industry.

Novell holds 332 trademark registrations worldwide for or containing the NOVELL
mark (See Complaint, Annex 3). Novell also owns various U.S. trademark registrations
for the mark NOVELL PRESS under which it distributes all educational and supplemental
printed materials in regard to its various products and services (See Complaint,
Annex 4).

Novell also has registered the mark CNA in Japan and has used the mark in the
U.S. since September 1994. See Complaint, Annex 5. CNA is the acronym for "Certified
Novell Administrator," a well-known education course offered by Novell.

Novell owns registrations for the mark CNE in the U.S. and elsewhere and has
used the mark since January 1989. See Complaint, Annex 6. CNE is the acronym
for "Certified Novell Engineer," a well-known education course offered by Novell.
A CNE certification is considered very marketable in the computer and Internet
industry, and thousands of people are licensed to use the title each year.

The disputed domain names relate to Web sites which "frame" Novell's Education
home page. The top of each site indicates that the domain names are for sale.
The sites also include a counting device to track the number of "hits."

Novell sent a "cease and desist" letter to Respondent requesting that it cease
its infringing use. However, since the address listed in the WHOIS database
was incorrect, the letter was returned as "undeliverable." The letter was then
sent to Respondent via e-mail. Respondent's representative, Mr. Hauser, responded
that he had registered the domain names as part of a Web development course
he was teaching and that his students, without his knowledge, offered the domain
names for sale. On April 30, 2001, Mr. Hauser agreed to assign the domain
names to Novell but has not yet returned the assignment forms.

5. Parties' Contentions

Complainant contends that the domain name <novellpress.com> is identical
to its registered marks NOVELL and NOVELL PRESS and that there is a likelihood
of confusion between its CNE and CNA marks and the domain names <cnetutor.com>
and <cnatutor.com>. According to Novell, both CNE and CNA refer to its
educational courses and the term "tutor" is commonly associated with educational
assistance. Thus, Novel argues, "it stands to reason that one would associate
a `CNE tutor' or `CNA tutor' as someone with a relationship with Novell who
is offering assistance with Novell's CNE or CNA educational course."

Complainant further argues that Respondent has no legitimate interest in the
domain names, given that Novell has not licensed Respondent or Mr. Hauser to
use any of the marks or to apply for any domain names incorporating any of Novell's
marks.

In its Response, Respondent argues that neither CNE nor CNA is unique. It maintains
that countless companies use these acronyms.

With respect to the issue of "bad faith" registration and use, Respondent contends
that the name <novellpress.com> was registered as part of a college e-commerce
class and that the sole intent of the class was to sell the name to Novell for
$15.00, the registration cost. According to Respondent, it made phone calls
to Novell in an effort to notify it that the name was secured for Novell. These
calls were not returned. Respondent also indicates that, upon being notified
by Novell, it "pointed" the domain name <novellpress.com> to <novell.com>
and ceased any further use of the name.

6. Discussion and Findings

The Panel has carefully reviewed the evidence presented and determines that
Complainant has not met all the requirements set forth in para. 4(a) of the
Policy.

As an initial matter, the Panel concludes that Novell has established rights
in the marks NOVELL, NOVELL PRESS, CNA and CNE through its registrations in
the U.S. and/or in other countries. It is also clear that the domain name <novellpress.com>
is confusingly similar to Novell's NOVELL PRESS mark. However, the Panel determines
that the domain names <cnatutor.com> and <cnetutor.com> are neither
identical nor confusingly similar to Novell's CNA and CNE marks. In the Panel's
opinion, the addition of the term "tutor" in the domain names creates a commercial
impression markedly different from either CNA or CNE alone. The terms cnatutor
and cnetutor do not, in the Panel's view, look like or sound like either CNA
or CNE.

While Complainant contends that there is a likelihood of confusion between
its CNA and CNE marks and the <cnatutor.com> and <cnetutor.com>
domain names on the basis that the term "tutor" is associated with educational
assistance, which service is provided by Novell under the CNE and CNE marks,
in the Panel's view, likelihood of confusion is not the appropriate test under
the Policy. In this regard, the Panel notes that under the "Anticybersquatting
Consumer Protection Act" (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. 1125(d), a determination
as to whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark is
made "without regard to the goods or services of the parties." See 15 U.S.C.
1125(d)(1)(A). While this statutory language, obviously, is not controlling
in the instant proceeding, the Panel deems it instructive. This is especially
so given that the ACPA and the UDRP are both aimed at providing relief against
cybersquatters and both require proof that the domain name(s) in issue is "identical
or confusingly similar" to the trademark owner's mark [1].

With respect to the domain name <novellpress.com>, the Panel further
concludes that Respondent, at least initially, used it in a noncommercial manner.
It appears, however, that Respondent, currently, is not making any use of this
domain name.

In any case, the Panel finds no evidence of the required "bad faith" use and
registration. While it appears that the disputed web sites advertised that the
domain names were for sale, the evidence indicates that the compensation sought
did not exceed Respondent's out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain
name. Further, the Panel is persuaded, as contended by Respondent, that the
<novellpress.com> domain name was registered as part of an educational
exercise, with no intent to disrupt the business of a competitor or to cause
any likelihood of confusion. The Panel also credits Respondent's argument that,
upon being contacted by Novell's attorneys, the <novellpress.com> Web
site was "pointed" to Complainant's <novell.com> site. Such conduct is
consistent with a finding of lack of "bad faith."

7. Decision

In view of the above, the Panel denies Complainant's request for transfer to
it of the domain names <novellpress.com>; <cnatutor.com>; and <cnetutor.com>.

Jeffrey M. Samuels
Sole Panelist

Dated: November 13, 2001

Footnote:

1. The Panel further notes that the term
"likelihood of confusion" is used in the Policy in connection with para. 4.b.(iv),
dealing with "bad faith" registration and use. Presumably, if likelihood of
confusion was intended to be the standard under para. 4.a.(i) of the Policy,
the Policy would so state.